Since Forbes hired me in 1995 to write a legal column, I’ve taken advantage of the great freedom the magazine grants its staff, to pursue stories about everything from books to billionaires. I’ve chased South Africa’s first black billionaire through a Cape Town shopping mall while admirers flocked around him, climbed inside the hidden chamber in the home of an antiquarian arms and armor dealer atop San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill, and sipped Chateau Latour with one of Picasso’s grandsons in the Venice art museum of French tycoon François Pinault. I’ve edited the magazine’s Lifestyle section and opinion pieces by the likes of John Bogle and Gordon Bethune. As deputy leadership editor, these days I mostly write about careers and corporate social responsibility. I got my job at Forbes through a brilliant libertarian economist, Susan Lee, whom I used to put on television at MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Before that I covered law and lawyers for journalistic stickler, harsh taskmaster and the best teacher a young reporter could have had, Steven Brill.

Why Romney Lost: Conservative Commentary Roundup

From the conservative point of view, why did Mitt Romney lose a presidential election that Steve Forbes and many others were predicting would be, in Steve’s words, a “decisive victory” for the Republican challenger?

Here at Forbes, opinion editor John Tamnywrites that it was Romney’s economic advisers who cost him the election. Columbia business school dean Glenn Hubbard is too much of a skeptic on China trade, and he was misguided when he advocated policies that would increase demand for housing at a time when markets were calling for less investment in the sector. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw supported a cheaper dollar, a policy that is damaging to Americans’ efforts to save and invest. American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett supported a misguided work-sharing idea where companies would reduce hours for some employees and create more jobs for others, missing the point that job creation comes from expanded investment, rather than slicing a finite pie. On taxes, Romney failed to explain his plan in the debates, and retreated from the idea that the 1% boost the economy, rather than drag it down. In an election that should have been a landslide, writes Tamny, Romney “had the wrong people whispering in his ear about economic policy.”

At The Wall Street Journal, today’s lead editorial calls Obama’s victory “the definition of winning ugly” because instead of laying out an inspiring agenda for his second term, he portrayed Romney “as a plutocrat and intolerant threat” to various voting blocs that ultimately supported Obama, including single women, young people, cultural liberals, union workers and minority voters. The Journal also notes that Obama got a boost from Hurricane Sandy, as it gave Obama the chance to rise above partisanship and appear to be a strong leader. Obama also owes thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts, who “provided a salve of legitimacy” to Obamacare, and to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, whose monetary policies lifted asset prices, boosting the stock market and consumer confidence. The Journal says Romney failed effectively to defend his Bain Capital record, and faltered in his efforts to distinguish his economic plan from George W. Bush’s. When it came to the minority vote, Romney also failed, sticking to immigration policies that were unpopular with Hispanics.

At The National Review, Kevin Williamson says Romney’s downfall was his failure to sway Ohio voters, but Williamson does not so much blame Romney as attribute Obama’s victory to the president being a “skillful demagogue,” who capitalized on Ohioans’ support of the auto bailout, their opposition to low capital gains taxes for the wealthy and their reluctance to see a repeal of Obamacare.

Also at the Review, Michael Tanner writes that it was not the Romney campaign that lost the election, but the Republican Party, which has failed to expand its demographic reach beyond white men. Republicans also failed to persuade young voters and Republicans’ hard-line stance on immigration failed miserably with Hispanics, who helped Obama carry Nevada and Colorado. On social issues, Tanner says the Republicans have struck the wrong tone, sounding “intolerant and self-righteous” as they have opposed abortion rights and gay marriage. “The Republican brand was too easily associated with the words of Todd Akin,” he writes. The Republicans also made a mistake when they indulged the “birther” proponents, and ultimately failed to offer an agenda for the future that was positive and hopeful enough to persuade swing voters.

Carrie Lukas, managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum, writes on the Review’s blog that Republicans needed to counter the Democrats’ “war on women” argument. Romney and his camp should have clarified that they were not trying to restrict women’s access to contraception, and they never made a winning argument about why Republican economic policies would be more likely to create jobs for women and reduce the deficit.

At The Washington Examiner, Byron York has a revealing piece where he describes a meeting late last night between top Romney aides, including Beth Myers and Eric Fehrnstrom, who gathered at the Westin Hotel in Boston to discuss the reasons for Romney’s defeat. Hurricane Sandy had arrested Romney’s momentum at a critical point in the campaign. Another factor: the Romney camp didn’t effectively counter the barrage of Obama ads over the spring and summer that attacked Romney’s personal wealth and his record at Bain Capital. Romney’s aides also acknowledged the candidate’s failure to appeal to Latino voters, and his lag in moving to the center after the polarizing primary season.

Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, writes that Romney lost because Obama simply ran a superior campaign. Says Erickson, “there was just a really good ground game from Barack Obama and a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans,” including those who worked for Republican Super PACs, who never communicated an effective message. Erickson says, “Neither side put forth a serious agenda that stood for much of anything.” While Obama’s message was an attack on Romney, Romney “stood for nothing and everything at the same time.” Romney’s position-shifting blurred his message and made it tough for voters to know what he stood for. Also he didn’t even try to win the support of Hispanic voters. Erickson adds that the weak slate of GOP senate nominees, including Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, hurt Romney’s prospects.

John Podhoretz at The New York Postagrees with Erickson that Obama’s campaign was far superior to Romney’s. Not only was the president’s message more effective, but he ran a strong state-by-state get-out-the vote effort that delivered his victory. Obama also effectively persuaded voters that he inherited an America that was in dire straits when he took office, and worked hard to make things better, rallying the Democratic base and spurring those who had stayed home during the 2010 midterm elections to come out and vote. That included young people, African-Americans, Hispanics and, as Podhoretz says, “the killer app of 2012,” single women. Concludes Podhoretz, “I fear very much what [Obama] is going to do to the country, but you have to admire this political master and his amazing handicraft.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

It wasn’t just the presidents words that did Romney in. Romney himself justified his portrayal as a plutocrat and an intolerant threat by his own words and actions. The American people could see through him.

Stating the voters did not elect Romney because they analyzed his adviser’s economic policies is, sadly, giving way too much credit to the electorate. I have an MBA and did not look at that level of detail. Romney and Ryan lost because they are Romney and Ryan, way too similar to GW Bush and bowed to the ridiculously radical platform of the Tea Party. Most voters found Romney and Ryan untrustworthy and saw a leader in Obama, despite the state of the economy. Obama provides at least hope, not a return to the failed policies of Bush.

Romney lost because an increasing percentage of (R) recognized his forecasts relied on the same Keynesian Multipliers as Obama’s casting a cloud over his presidential promises. This is a topic covered by Forbes to which Republican former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin acknowledged here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlCp6h1GOYI ____________________________ Q: @1:52 Is it necessarily a bad thing that keynesian philosophy is used by all CBO directors. A: I’m not particularly fond of it. The trouble is theres not a consensus alternative. ____________________________ Many recognized the inherent unreliable nature of Mr. Romney’s forecasts due to not only the Keynesian Multipliers (used also by Mr. Obama), but also recognizing the imprecision of forecasting human behavior. Bjork may have said it best in her gripping Official Video with eye-popping visuals entitled “Human Behavior” here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDbPYoaAiyc

Romney’s Orca Project was so wrong, not because of the Keynesian Multipliers, but failure to recognize Bjork’s simple recognition. We cannot quantify human behavior with as much precision as we purport. Thank you.

I see this loss as a compilation of errors, arrogance, misreads, and overconfidence. From the vacillating stances of the candidate himself, to the total lack of any actual plan other than ‘defeating Obama’ from the campaign itself, to totally ignoring the Latinos and other minorities, to a false belief that the American people really didn’t want a black man in the White house. Season that with a strong dose of the dissing of many women’s issues, thinking that the whites alone would carry the election for them, and thinking the religious right would automatically stand up for them. Failure all around. And when you are the Prez, have an awesome campaign staff, and an incredible ground game, things tend to favor you.

Let’s not over analyze this please. He lost because he was unable to relate to most of the American people. He lost my vote and respect when he said that Russia was our biggest international threat, I didn’t need to hear anything more from him after that!

The issue is less Romney, who I thought made a good showing in the final laps, than where he had to position himself vis a vis the party; and an indication of more of a problem with the party than him. He had to go right to win the nomination — compromising himself and building a portfolio of contradictions he had to reconcile later; then swing to the middle to be considered for the general election. In the final laps, it was his moderate positions, plus his native abilities that won him credibility in the debates, and made him competitive. It was the remaining artifacts from his conservative positions that hurt him. If the party wasn’t so fragmented and Romney was able to be Romney, he would have won the election handily.

Romney team didn’t focus to the weakness of Obama administration; high unemployment, housing foreclosures, high gas prices, high food prices, $1 trillions annual deficits in four years, additional $13 trillions of foreign debts, Obamacare & etc.. Those issues will give concerns to Americans to think twice, if Romney have communicated it to the voters. He should have hired a good communication advisor, think-tank and spins advisers.

Romney lost because an overwhelming number of blacks and latinos voted for him…and of course younger women concerned with abortion. It had nothing to do with Mitt not clearly explaining his economics, tax plan…etc. oboma hasn’t hadn’t an economic plan for the past 4 years and won’t have one for the next 4 years. Hell, he didn’t have a budget!!!

Clearly the US is changing and a large portion of its citizens have bought into the European desire for a socialistic society…”wonder how that philosophical change will work out”?